Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 December 2003

Nicole Kidman has recently been in Australia to plug the already heavily promoted Cold Mountain but you may not know that there’s another Kidman film now playing in selected theatres.  Dogville has been written and directed by the Denmark’s Lars Von Trier – a man who is anything but conventional.  He has been making films in his own country since the 70s but it wasn’t until 1996 when I saw my first Von Trier film, Breaking The Waves, at the Brisbane International Film Festival.  The only other film of his you are likely to know is 2000’s Dancer In The Dark (starring Bjork) but I’ll presume you haven’t seen that either.

Dogville premiered at this year’s Cannes Film Festival and is the story of a woman named Grace (played by Kidman).  The mob is after her and she has escaped into the mountains and comes across the very small town of Dogville where there are only 15 adult residents.  It is Tom (Bettany) who first meets her and he puts his argument to the town that she should be allowed to stay.  They are reluctant to believe her story and don’t want any trouble brought to their community but they allow her to stay on a trial basis.

Helping the townsfolk out with their businesses and chores, Grace starts fitting in.  Even when the mob offers a substantial reward for her capture, they keep her presence a closely guarded secret.  Things change though after time and Grace is soon taken for granted.  There is a realisation amongst those in the town that she is theirs for the taking.  They can make work her like a slave and take advantage of her sexually because she has nowhere else to turn.  Grace, so willing for their help, now wants anything but.

It’s a very interesting story where the power shifts between its characters.  It’s difficult to predict where it all may end and I thoroughly enjoyed the surprises contained within the ending.  Nicole Kidman is beautifully sedated in her portrayal of Grace and the remaining cast do a great job in adding intrigue to their characters.  Just who can be trusted?

When you look at the above analysis, you’d think this is a rather conventional film which would be showing at most cinemas across the country.  Well there are some details regarding the production which I should elaborate on.  Firstly, there are no sets.  It is filmed completely on a sound stage and apart from a few chairs and tables, there’s nothing there.  A character will open a door and you hear the sound effect of a door opening but you just don’t see the door.  You just have to imagine the walls of the houses, the bushes in the gardens and even the view of the surrounding area.  During the day, the lights above the set are turned up and to represent the night, they are dimmed.   I can’t say I’ve seen a film made quite this way before.

Secondly, the film is put together like a book.  It is heavily narrated (by John Hurt) and is split into a prologue and nine chapters.  Before each chapter begins, we are given a brief description of what is about to happen.  You’d think this would spoil the tension but it does not.  It even adds to the excitement in places because you know something important is about to happen.  On a side note, the chapters also make it easy to gauge how long there is to go in the film so there’s no need to squint at your watch in the darkness.

Dogville is a strange experiment in filmmaking and as evident from the reactions on SBS’s The Movie Show, it will divide audiences.  Margaret Pomeranz described the film as one “you discuss standing on the footpath afterwards” in giving in five stars.  Alternatively, David Stratton said his “junior school production of Willow Pattern Plate was more exciting” and thought only one star was a worthy score.  I’ll take Margaret’s side here and like Lars Von Trier’s other films, I applaud him for taking a chance and giving us something interesting to watch.  Do see it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 December 2003

Hogan’s film begins with a very short introduction.  Wendy (Hurd-Wood) and her two brothers, John and Michael, love having fun and telling stories.  Wendy is the eldest and her father has decided that all this nonsense has to stop.  It’s time to grow up.

With her parents away, she is visited on her window ledge by a flying boy.  Peter Pan (Sumpter) promises to take her away to Neverland – a place where she doesn’t have to grow up.  She can meet new people, go on amazing adventures and “never have to worry about grown-up things again.”  Wendy, John and Michael are soon wisked away by Peter to enjoy this new world of freedom.

The subject of the adventure on Neverland is the notorious Captain Hook (Isaacs).  Pan once sliced off his hand in a dramatic sword battle and it has been replaced with a metal hook – hence the name.  With Pan enjoying himself with his new friends (particularly Wendy), Hook sees the distraction as a weakness.  Revenge will be bittersweet for Captain Hook and his band of merry pirates…

The first hour of Peter Pan is the most disappointing.  The editing is inconsistent and at times it’s hard to discern what is actually going on in the scene.  It also feels rushed in that there are many fast-paced action scenes without sufficient time to introduce their purpose.  For example, I didn’t know why Wendy was so keen to leave her home for Neverland.  Surely this couldn’t all be because of one tiny argument with her father?  You’d never think such poor editing would come from three time Academy Award winning editor Michael Kahn (Saving Private Ryan) but I’m sure he’s not entirely at fault.  He can only work with the footage that has already been shot.

The music score is too sweet and the art direction rather ordinary.  There are many scenes shot in a forest but it looks so much like a tiny film set.  Is there any logistical reason why they wouldn’t shoot outdoors?  The colourings too seem askew and on more that one occasion I was questioning the strength of the lighting too.  I very much enjoyed P.J. Hogan’s last two released features, Muriel’s Wedding and My Best Friends Wedding but this isn’t up to his high standards and I do hope that he sees that.

Working with a young cast will invariably have its problems and yes, they are exposed here.  Rachel Hurd-Wood is great as Wendy but Jeremy Sumpter is too rigid in the delivery of his lines and the supporting cast are even worse.  Jason Isaacs doesn’t do much for me either as Captain Hook.  Compare his performance with that of Dustin Hoffman’s in 1991’s Hook and you’ll see where I’m coming from.

Having not yet been released anywhere else but Australia, it’ll be interesting to see over the coming weeks whether Peter Pan finds an audience.  There’s a great trailer (beautifully using the music of Coldplay) but word will spread fast if audiences share my criticisms.  It’s disheartening but the truth can’t be hidden.  This isn’t up to scratch.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 December 2003

Such hype always leaves me sceptical and I did scrutinise the film with added vigour in hope of finding something disparaging to speak of.  Sure enough, in its 201 minutes I noted many unflattering qualities.  Why then did I like the film so much?  Well for all my silly nit-picking there’s one quality that matters most – a great story.

The Return Of The King comes from an intricate novel and has been near-perfectly adapted by Peter Jackson.  It has all the action of The Two Towers but in the final half hour develops an added emotional element as the long tale comes to its fitting end.  Tears are shed by our characters and most audience members will also find their eyes a little moist.

If you’re looking for a quick plot review, Frodo (Wood) and Sam (Astin) continue their journey to Mount Doom where the Ring of Fire can be destroyed.  Frodo is tiring under the ring’s pressure and his mind is being poisoned by the creepy Gollum who only wants the ring for himself.  Meanwhile, the wizard Gandalf (McKellan) receives word that the evil Sauron will attack the city of Minas Tirith and asks Aragorn (Mortensen) to assemble army of men to defend it.  With the help of the elf Legolas (Bloom) and the dwarf Gimli (Rhys-Davies), Aragorn not only fulfils his task but also finds another ally deep within the mountains.  It is time for the battle to begin.

Echoing my sentiments from The Two Towers, I most enjoyed watching the mind games between Frodo, Sam and Gollum.  Their story closely follows the essence of the whole Rings saga – that of power and how easily it can corrupt those who wield it.  The performances of Elijah Wood and Sean Astin are simply superb.  Just wait until you see them battle against a giant spider named Shelob – it’s the best individual scene.

The battle at Minas Tirith is a little repetitive and I unfortunately felt the special effects were more evident than they should have been.  Another minor qualm was watching some of the characters (particularly Legolas and Gimli) turn into clichéd action heroes.  Damn, I’m being fussy again!  Why am I focusing on such minor flaws when there is so much to praise?  Ian McKellan is fantastic as Gandalf, Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan deservedly get more screen time and Australian actress Miranda Otto is stunning. 

The Lord Of The Rings has been a wonderful journey to follow on screen.  Two years ago, I knew next to nothing about the production.  Now I look back in awe at one of cinema’s great productions.  It is quite simply the best film trilogy ever made.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 December 2003

His relationship with his wife has followed the same path.  Bob is ensnared in a marriage where they stay together not by love but routine.  His wife’s biggest concern right now is finding the right shade of red to carpet Bob’s study.  She even sends a Fed-Ex box full of samples to his hotel in Tokyo, complete with her recommendations, to hasten his decision.

Charlotte (Johansson) is an intelligent young woman who sees no life in front of her.  She has just graduated from Yale with a degree in psychology but doesn’t know how it will serve her.  She’s tried writing but hates the stuff she writes.  She’s tried photography but knows she’s a petty amateur.

Charlotte’s trip to Japan has turned into little more than a sight-seeing expedition.  Her husband, John (Ribisi), is in Tokyo on business and she tagged along in the hope of rekindling their own waning marriage.  Instead, he’s never at the hotel and Charlotte escapes the depression of the hotel room by acting the tourist around town.

Bob and Charlotte don’t know what they are looking for by they will soon find it in each other.  They bump into each other at the hotel’s bar and their unspoken similarities help form a much needed friendship.  Soon, they are spending every moment possible together and their personal problems are quickly being forgotten.  They both know their stay in Tokyo is short but this brief, fleeting moment of pleasure reminds them of a long lost feeling – happiness.

Lost In Translation is the second feature film of female director Sofia Coppola who made The Virgin Suicides in 1999.  On paper she is a rookie but when you look at the beautiful control with which she commands her camera, you’ll see she is the equal of her father, Francis Ford Coppola (director of The Godfather trilogy).  Sofia has not chosen the film’s setting by accident and produces some wonderful panoramic shots of the colourful city.  I also loved the way the cinematography tended to focus heavily on each character’s eyes.  They say you can tell a lot by one’s eye movement and I particularly like Sofia’s style in letting the body movements do most of talking.  A fine example is a scene the two share together on Bob’s bed.

I couldn’t ask for two more well chosen cast members than Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson.  I have adored Murray’s comedic antics since I was a kid in films like Ghostbusters, Caddyshack and Groundhog Day.  Only now though is he finding critical acclaim with quirkier, more meaningful comedies such as this and 1998’s Rushmore.  If any actor is overdue for an Oscar nomination it is Murray and his unwaveringly lethargic performance as Bob Harris deserves to break the drought.  Johansson, on the other hand, is a rising starlet who you may recall from The Horse Whisperer and the brilliant Ghost World.  She is simply gorgeous in this film and her distinctively raspy voice will define her own performances in years to come.

Lost In Translation is a touching mixture of romance, drama and comedy set against the backdrop of a truly unique culture.  Undoubtedly, something for everyone.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 December 2003

Love Actually is one of those films where there are many characters and many storylines with a common link.  I’m a huge fan of this technique having adored Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights and Magnolia, and Robert Altman’s Short Cuts and Gosford Park.  First time director Richard Curtis appears well out of his depth with this material.  It’s as if he’s shot six separate movies, sliced them into random pieces, mixed them in a blender and shoved the results in a film can.

There’s no flow or continuity.  One minute the film is trying to be a hilarious laugh-out loud comedy, the next minute it’s a tear-jerking drama, the next minute it’s a sentimental feel-good flick.  The film continues in this silly loop with unrelenting annoyance.  Some of the stories aren’t even resolved – they’re just left hanging.

I believe passionately in my criticisms but I sense I was the minority at my sold-out preview screening.  Audience members giggled with glee but this only added to awful taste in my mouth.  Just because there’s a cool soundtrack, unexpected cameos, big names stars and Christmas cheer doesn’t mean it’s a worthy film to see.  It’s missing the key ingredient – a plot.  A little style wouldn’t hurt either.

Let me quickly sum up the story as I must compulsorily do in any review.  Billy (Nighy) is an aging rock-star who’s releasing a tacky Christmas single in the hope of getting one last number one hit.  Jamie (Firth) has just caught his wife in bed with his brother and has gone to his French villa to escape and write a novel.  Daniel’s (Neeson) wife has just passed away and he’s left dealing with a complicated step-son.  Juliet (Knightley) has just married the man of her dreams only to find his best friend complicate the blissful matrimony.  Sarah (Linney) has had a crush on a much younger man at work for over two years and is looking for the courage to ask him out.  Harry (Rickman) is being slowly seduced by his secretary at work although waiting at home are three kids and his wife Karen (Thompson).  Oh and yes, Hugh Grant is an eligible bachelor who also happens to be the Prime Minister.  There’s other sub-plots too but if you blink (as I did), you’re likely to miss them.

Bill Nighy’s portrayal of the rock-star is the pick of the bunch.  He’s funny in every scene.  Rowan Atkinson makes a nice cameo too at a department store.  But for the rest of this talented cast, they have nothing to work with.  The dialogue is horribly laboured and I couldn’t care whether these spoilt brats fell in love or not.  These characters have no human qualities whatsoever.  Never could I believe that the English would make a film so riddled with American stereotypes.

Love may be all around us but it wasn’t coming from me in that theatre.